Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

9200SE or MX440 ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 4, 2004 5:29:19 PM

I've been looking all over the place and have not yet been able to find any head-to-head benchmarks on these two video cards :( 

Radeon 9200SE 8x 128MB
Geforce4 MX440 8x 64MB

I originally though the 9200SE would be better... but looking at the clock speeds it is no longer so apparent...

9200SE 200MHz/400MHz
MX440 (8x) 275MHz/500MHz

I've read somewhere that the extra 64MB of memory is basically worthless on such a 'slow' card so I don't <i>think</i> it is a big factor...

Which one would you buy (if you had to) <b>and why</b>?
It's for a friend who is a VERY modest budget and both will beat his current VIA Unicrome onboard video crap so don't go saying "neither, they both suck" because I know that ;) 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

(I know this may be coming so I'll say right now that I can't get a FX5200, they are $30-40 more then the above cards)

More about : 9200se mx440

February 4, 2004 6:31:41 PM

Both of these cards are horrible. It really doesn't matter which is better, becuase they both suck. Badly.

How cheap did you find them? You can get a Geforce4 Ti4200 for as little as $85 online. Or maybe even a 9600 SE.

If you really need to save those extra $$, I think I recommend the 9200SE just because it's DirectX 8 class at least. Although the Geforce4 MX is probably a little faster, but it has absolutely no shaders.

Nah, scratch that. I can't recommend either... it's the devil's choice. Both cards are really bad.

If you're that poor, better options are the Geforce3 Ti200... You can find those for $56 on price watch.
Or any 9000/9100/9200 non SE, you should be able to find those around $60 for sure. Keep your eyes open for a 9000 PRO, that'd be a decent low-end card if you can find one cheap enough.


________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
February 4, 2004 7:08:04 PM

Although I appreciate the reply, did you not see the: "It's for a friend who is a VERY modest budget and both will beat his current VIA Unicrome onboard video crap <b>so don't go saying "neither, they both suck"</b> because I know that"?

Online purchase is not an option.
It's either one of these two cards or he sticks with onboard 32MB shared VIA Unicrome gfx. You have to admit these options are 3x better then that p.o.s.

I just want to know which one is better and why.
Thanks again.

:) 
Related resources
February 4, 2004 7:56:47 PM

I can't recommend either. They both suck.

Or put another way, it doesn't matter which card they get.

Although if you read my post carefully you'll see an answer in there, which I will re-paraphrase: You can either choose DirectX 8 functionality (The Radeon) or higher bandwidth (the GeforceMX).

As to which one is better, it entirely depends on the games they will play, and which of those two options works best with that game.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
February 4, 2004 8:12:42 PM

Thanks again.
Like I've said, they are better then the cheap onboard he is using right now right?... I'm not looking for anyone to recommend them, just help with picking which one is better.

I just want to know overall which would be better for playing a wide variety of games. He has no problems playing at 800x600 with everything turned to low settings no AA/Anti.

I wish I could have found some head-to-head benchmarks because I really don't know which one to get... :( 

Oh the MX440 is $10 cheaper if that helps.
February 4, 2004 8:15:01 PM

If he plays a wide variety of games, it doesn't really matter which card he picks.

Toss a coin.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
February 4, 2004 8:15:29 PM

Just get the MX440 if it's $10 cheaper.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
February 4, 2004 8:35:03 PM

Does either card overclock better then the other? That may help me choose.

What it comes down to it he has already bought the 9200SE, but after looking around I'm afraid I recommended the wrong one of the two. He can still exchange for the MX440 before I do the work for him (on Friday).
February 4, 2004 8:38:07 PM

I agree,take the geforce 4 mx 440.
February 4, 2004 9:21:17 PM

"I agree,take the geforce 4 mx 440."

Could you claify as to why I should pick it?
Thanks!
February 4, 2004 9:53:05 PM

Oh one last thing. Anyone know the overclocking potential of either card?
February 5, 2004 1:30:00 AM

Reason: it's cheaper. AFAIK, the GeForce will OC more--shouldn't make a difference, you won't get any improvement that would allow you to increase settings.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
February 5, 2004 5:33:30 AM

After further investigation it appears the 9200SE is locked so that you can not over clock it at all. Hmmmm interesting.

After further investigating it appears the the cheaper MX440 is quite a bit better for games then the 9200SE...

Anyone with any more comments?
February 5, 2004 9:15:08 AM

Yeah, I'll throw in my two cents here.

MX440 - owned one for 1.5 years now, and I have no problem with any games so far - UT2003, GP4, F1 Championship 99-02, Halo, Elite Force 2, etc. I know its flaws - dx7, no shaders, basically a suped up gf2 mx (so everyone says, but let me assure you, this card is good). Okay its not gonna run HL2 or Doom 3 at full setings, but it'll be playable at 1024x768, low settings imo.

The SE cards are absolutely rubbish, and the 9200 is terrible. The mx440 might be old, but its good, go with that. ps never had any overheating issues or performance issue - this card is not the 8x version either.

XP2000, 256ddr 2100ram, GF4 MX440, XP Pro
February 5, 2004 11:17:38 AM

That's pretty harsh, Hogfather.

Have you ever even tried a 9200SE? Because in real life it aint so bad compared to an MX440, I can assure you...

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
February 5, 2004 12:02:49 PM

I'd say the GF4-440MX of the two, BUT, what myself, and proabably most people here, can't understand is your concrete decision it has to be one of those 2 cards and nothing else. Why is online out? People are just trying to help you/your friend get a better card. If online wasn't out you sometimes find GF3Ti200 or Radeon 8500le refurbs for cheaper than a new 9200se or GF4MX440. No comparison in speed. Unless of course your friend is choosing between 2 used cards at a super cheap price. But saying that would explain the situation more.

So, 440MX because it is a little quicker in older games and $10 cheaper (which I hope is close to 20-25% cheaper), and neither will play the newest games well. But the smartest choice may be openning your minds up to other options people mention.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt
February 5, 2004 12:13:37 PM

As a conclusion i would say that the 9200se has better shaders than the geforce 4 mx 440 but the nVidia's video card is a little bit faster and it can be overclocked in opposition to the ati's card which is locked.Except that is 10 bucks cheaper than the 9200se(as you said).I made a summary for you but you have to make the selection according to your needs. :smile:
February 5, 2004 12:27:08 PM

IF YOU THOUGHT THE MX440 IS BETTER, YOU ARE WRONG!

HERE ARE BENCHMARKS:
<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html...;/A>

In Tom's VGA guide, the 9200SE beats the MX460 in Unreal Tournament 2003, Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty, Warcraft 3, C&C Generals, Halo, Nascar Thunder, X2 the threat, and Aquamark.

The MX460 wins only in Quake3 Arena, and not by much.

None of the benches are won with massive gains mind you, but the answer is clear: the 9200SE (AKA 9200 64) is a better card than eve the GeforceMX 460, which is better than the GeforceMX 440.

Funny how we all assumed we knew that the MX440 was lots better and none of us actually bothered to check.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
February 5, 2004 1:46:18 PM

Cleeve, I was looking at that myself and thinking of posting it. But although his $43 price makes it look like it was a SE, I think the card benchmarked is actually a radeon 9200 not a 9200se. It had 250/400 clock speeds and was 128-bit and I think the se's are all 200/400 or 200/333 with only 64-bit mem interface

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt
February 5, 2004 2:10:46 PM

I'm not seeing a 9200SE in that benchmark suite, only a 9600SE.

<b>Qui habet aures audiendi audiat</b>
February 5, 2004 2:26:25 PM

Chrikes! My mistake.

I assumed that the 9200 64 was an SE... the 64 referring to the memory interface, not the memory amount (which it is).

Here's a 9200SE VS a Geforce2 MX 400, closest thing I can find so far:

http://ohls-place.com/nuke/modules.php?name=News&file=a...



________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
February 5, 2004 2:56:11 PM

Perhaps I was a little harsh. However, there is no SE there (tho fair enough, the 64 tricked me) but the GF2 MX is not a fair comparison at all.

XP2000, 256ddr 2100ram, GF4 MX440, XP Pro
February 5, 2004 3:28:12 PM

an 8500le is even better than those, if you can slitl find them.. another name for them is the 9100 as its the exact same card with slight clock speed differences


-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
February 5, 2004 4:16:55 PM

I have to pick between these two cards. His wife won't let him buy anything online or spend any more money (yes I know... whiiiii-pish). He's buying a whack of other stuff at the same time and just can't spend any extra.

For everyone out there that says to get somethings else, well he plans on buying a newer video card within the next year when he hasn't spent some money in awhile. This is just to get him by for now and again, both will whip the onboard VIA Unicrome he has now.


I found this review of a motherboard with <b>onboard</b> MX440 and it whips the 9200SE!
I can only imagine now that a dedicated 8x MX440 will beat it even better.

Take a look and let me know what you think:
<A HREF="http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=171&p=445" target="_new">http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=171&p=445&lt;/A>

Now if everyone agrees that I should get the MX440 can you help me pick between these two (they are same price)

Pandex Geforce4 MX440-8X 64MB DDR w/ TV-Out
MSI G4 MX440-T8X 64MB w/ TV-Out

The Pandex is a lesser known name but has a fan on it. The MSI just has a heat sink. I think the fan may be important because it's going into a Micro Mini tower... plus if want to oc it a bit I should have more success?
February 5, 2004 4:37:12 PM

Well, it looks like the 440 is indeed a good 15% to 25% better than the 9200SE, in light of those onboard benches.

And indeed, a standalone card would perform better than an onboard. So it looks like the MX440 is the way to go.



________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
February 5, 2004 4:50:59 PM

A mate of mine had a MX440 with no fan and it fried when he oc'ed it. With a fan, I've overclocked mine by 20mhz on both gpu and memory, and it runs fine, no heat issues. Perhaps a fan is a good idea.

XP2000, 256ddr 2100ram, GF4 MX440, XP Pro
a b U Graphics card
February 5, 2004 9:45:01 PM

I was going to stay out of this thread cause seriously, it's a terrible topic. It's like;

"If you had to chose between having your eyes gouged out and getting kicked in the nuts which would you take?"
"A so you like getting kicked in the nust do you, nut-kicker!"

Anywhoo, here's some benchies;

Lotsa Cards:
<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/index.html" target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/index.html...;/A>

The R9200SE versus the FX5200SE:
<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/asus-ati.htm..." target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/asus-ati.htm...;/A>

Look at the benchies at the bottom of this review
<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/pcolor-1.htm..." target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/pcolor-1.htm...;/A>

The R9200SE does look much better than the FX5200SE, but against the GFMXs it does seem to trail a bit. The thing is in modern games it does perform better....... BUT, we're talking about 5 fps versus 4 fps. Not something to be trumpeted by either side, and not enough to redeem the R9200SE.

Visual quality on the R9200SE will likely be superior, but that makes little difference if it's a pretty slide show.

Personally I hate this question, because I wouldn't waste my money on either, nor recommend friend do so either. Heck I'd sell my friend my R9000 first and take the difference and replace it with a P650 or something.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
February 5, 2004 10:18:42 PM

I can understand being on a budget, just not having your wife decide a 9200se or G4MX440 is what card you can buy.

If he is truely your friend, why don't you order him a faster card online. (Radeon 8500le, or better) and let him pay you cash. He can give you the $40 or whatever for the 9200se and then pay the rest over time. Seriously, as Grape just put it so bluntly, you don't want a friend to buy one of these cards. I've let friends and family Trade up for free sometimes because I hate to see them with pitiful fps when I have a card in stock that would fly in comparison.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt
a b U Graphics card
February 5, 2004 10:21:50 PM

Grape, THX for coming to this guys rescue. I have never seen that 80 card shootout, but am going to enjoy it tonight. LOL, I can see how my Rage Fury Pro compares to a 9800XT. :wink:

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt
February 5, 2004 10:59:17 PM

Again thanks for the advice. You guys seem to forget that he is using VIA Unicrome right now. Now THAT is pathetic. He'll play newer games with like 15 fps sometimes. He'll love this new card :) 
February 6, 2004 12:57:23 PM

I'm not quite sure that he will love this card but...anyway.
February 8, 2004 9:52:55 AM

Out of curiosity I benched the 9200SE on his comp before we're going to return is and it got a pitiful 3600 on 3D Mark 2001SE 1024x768. His oboard 32MG shared Unicrome gets 1500 so it is better but not by enough.
Looking around at benchmarks I would guess the MX440 will get around 7000, much much better then the 9200SE by far. For cheaper even :) 

Oh and his system btw is
Athlon 2600+
512 PC2700
Gigabyte GA-7VM400M-P mobo
80GB Maxtor 7200 HD
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2004 10:29:06 AM

How do his games play? Is he thrilled with the new card?

We tried to warn you. Remember, 3dmarks are far from everything. A Radeon 8500le could score close to 10,000 on his system. A Ti4200 close to 12000.

As has been suggested, why not help your friend out a little so he can move up to a card that actually has some gaming value.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt
February 9, 2004 1:51:21 AM

He is more then thrilled, estatic is more like it :)  Intsalled Medal Oh Honor, GTA3 Vice City and Neverwinter nights and they all play awesome! Much better then I expected.
Went from a 3DMark score of 1500 to 6000+

So to sum it up.

2001SE benchmarks on the exact same system. Same OS settings etc etc. 1024x768 32bit

Onboard Via Unicrome 32MB Shared
<b>1510</b>

Saphire Radeon 9200SE 128MB DDR 8x
<b>3702</b>

Pandex Geforce4 MX440 64MB DDR 8x
<b>6041</b>

I'm glad I looked into it further. Even saved myself $10 in the process. The framerates look much nicer on the MX440 compared to the 9200SE (don't even get me started on the onboard) and I did not see the FPS dip below 30 on any of the game tests in 3DMark, even the high detail ones (of course the MX440 is only DX7 so I could not run nature test).
Now to take a look at the overclocking potential of the MX440 and push a few more hundred points.
February 9, 2004 3:26:07 AM

So got a Pandex GF4 MX440-8x. On the online description from where I bought it it says that it's supposed to run at 275MHz core and 500MHz (250DDR) memory.

Problem is when I installed coolbits I was surprised to see the memory clock sitting at 332MHz... My question is, does the 332MHz mean the DDR speed or do I times that by 2 to get the real clock speed?

Here is a picture of how high I was able to oc without artifacts.
<A HREF="http://www.telusplanet.net/public/smarchuk/misc/clockfr..." target="_new">http://www.telusplanet.net/public/smarchuk/misc/clockfr...;/A>

So does that 354 mean 354 total DDR speed or 354x2=708... although I find 708 hard to believe...

So if it is indeed 333MHz DDR (166x2) then that is pretty crappy as I thought all 8x MX440's were 275/<b>500</b>! 166MHz less is quite allot of a difference! >:( 

Thanks in advance for any advice.
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2004 3:35:35 AM

Hey I thought this was for a friend not you. So why did it cost you $10 less? I thought it had to be one of those 2 cards because his wife wouldn't let him shop online (online was not an option). Yet you bought it online and still bought a GF4 MX440? I am confused. :wink: I am beginning to wonder if you are the one with the King-of-the-Household Wife. :smile: And I still can't believe that online you chose either of those cards.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 9, 2004 3:55:38 AM

Was that sarcasm really neccecary :( 

Yes it is for him. Situation is that he will be using this box for at work mostly on night shifts. Since I work with him and he is leaving it in his locker I will be able to use it on my night shifts (we work oposite rotations). I don't know why I have to explain my situation to you guys, it doesn't seem very nice, needed or welcome :( 
You don't need to try and play with my words.

FYI I have a 2100+@2700+ 512 PC2700 and a GF4 Ti4200-8x 128MG card.

But I still have the question about the clock speeds...
Thanks.
February 9, 2004 7:08:39 AM

So my question is quite simple.
Does the Memory Clock frequency shown by the "clock frequencies tab" show the DDR speed or the regular speed (of course you would then times by 2 to get the DDR speed).
February 9, 2004 9:58:04 AM

My GF4 MX440 4x agp shows core clock at 270mhz, memory at 400mhz. Hope that helps, I would suggest this is the ddr value, ie 200mhz x2

XP2000, 256ddr 2100ram, GF4 MX440, XP Pro
February 9, 2004 10:32:55 AM

Well I got ripped off then :( 
Thanks.
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2004 11:41:06 AM

Just giving you a hard time as you know I really had hoped you'd step up a notch. If you are happy with your purchase and it's performance, don't stress over feeling ripped off. If you still question your cards clock speeds, Run a 3dmark03 test and look under system details. It will show you your exact GPU clock & memory clock, as well as cpu speed. Then use the online results browser and you can compare what others with almost identical specs are getting.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 9, 2004 12:19:48 PM

I'm sure. The clock speed is 275/333. On the webpage where I bought it from it was listed as 275/500. That is a major difference. I will be going down to the shop to have a little talk with them later on.
I can only imagine that I should get another 1000 points if I get a MX440 with an extra 166MHz on the memory.

Some people have said that you can't trust 3D Mark 2001SE all that much. But a difference of 3700:7000 ? C'mon that's HUGE! :) 
February 9, 2004 12:58:46 PM

You must to check it out.That's my opinion.
February 9, 2004 1:30:58 PM

Just googled, and looks like memory clock is variable depending on brand. My Inno3d is 400, while Chaintech is 333mhz, and pixelview 550 :|

XP2000, 256ddr 2100ram, GF4 MX440, XP Pro
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2004 5:26:31 PM

With 333Mhz memory, seems like you got a MX440SE. Ya I guess I'd be ticked buying 500-550 and getting 333.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2004 5:40:23 PM

Hope your friend enjoys the card for as long as possible.

Just remember about 3dmark2001se, it is not a good indication how well newer games will play. Whoever suggested that the GF4MX440 will play HL2 at 1024x768, is in a GFMX fantasy world. I think Ti4200 owners are going to be playing at 800x600 and with far lower image quality then they had hoped for.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
!